I. The Material SystemA. The Origin of the Material SystemB. The True Purpose of the Material SystemII. The Religious SystemA. The Source of ReligionB. The World’s ReligionsC. The Jewish ReligionD. Christianity, the Religion

Yeah, they really dont seem to understand the issue. I tried to get into a discussion on youtube yesterday with a YEC. I asked him to present his evidence for a young earth. It was amazing how quick he scattered.

There is no physical support for a "Young" earth. But there is scriptural support for a specific Creation effort. Any review of divine interventions points to "time" as the unusual aspect.

Can somebody please explain Young Earth Creationism? It seems to me that anybody who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old is a lunatic. Is there something glaring I'm missing here?

There are a few hard-to-swallow ideas that men have come up with and a "young" earth was one imagined by a high mucky-muck in one church. It should have been ignored. "Lunatic" is pretty strong considering that people often swallow ideas that don't belong. 'Life in space" is an example of lunacy that some bought, others didn't.

There are a few hard-to-swallow ideas that men have come up with and a "young" earth was one imagined by a high mucky-muck in one church. It should have been ignored. "Lunatic" is pretty strong considering that people often swallow ideas that don't belong. 'Life in space" is an example of lunacy that some bought, others didn't.

you realize WE are in space right? the sheer vastness of space I do find it difficult to believe that there is not other life out there, we just happen to not be near it. Somewhere in the universe there is likely an alien thinking theyre alone in the universe. And its highly more likely than a invisible magical space pappy. At least we have rock solid proof of life in the universe... nothing for invisible sky daddies.

There are a few hard-to-swallow ideas that men have come up with and a "young" earth was one imagined by a high mucky-muck in one church. It should have been ignored.

Should the rest of what the Bible says be ignored, too, or just this part? I'm all for not taking it seriously.

The Genesis account does not describe a "young" earth. Adam is not an infant, trees have fruit on them, and Adam and Eve can talk. Nothing about the Creation account says that anything was 7 days old on the 7th day of Creation week. A Catholic priest came up with that idea that the earth is young and "Creationists" bought into the idea. None of the Apostles ever mentioned it.

you realize WE are in space right? the sheer vastness of space I do find it difficult to believe that there is not other life out there, <snip>

I'm not influenced by your belief system that you surround yourself with.The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.Lets just stick to the science. Nothing lives off the earth.

As far as dreams of other life.....lets be practical. Multiply the odds of life, by the speed of light, and by the time you find this statistical-planet-possibility, your radio message of success will not reach earth before humans all turn to dust. And that assuming your traveling at the speed of light. If you do then humans you left behind will all be dust after the first moment anyway.

But there is scriptural support for a specific Creation effort. Any review of divine interventions points to "time" as the unusual aspect.

"Scriptural support", as you call it, is bullshit. By your logic, scriptural support also shows that Zeus overpowered Chronus and ruled the Earth from Olympus.

That sounds like a Dr. Who episode, but I don't recall which one. Every research effort will produce some fiction and some non fiction sources. I've only chosen the Christian scriptures because they explain human nature to a T. Standard Psychology theory is light years behind in explaining the nature of good and evil and human pride.

Nothing about the Creation account says that anything was 7 days old on the 7th day of Creation week.

Uhh, yes it does. If something starts on one day, and is finished 6 days later, then after another day to rest, it's 7 days old. That is directly what the Creation account says. As I said, I'm all for not taking it seriously. But at least admit that you're doing the same, and selectively at that.

That sounds like a Dr. Who episode, but I don't recall which one. Every research effort will produce some fiction and some non fiction sources. I've only chosen the Christian scriptures because they explain human nature to a T. Standard Psychology theory is light years behind in explaining the nature of good and evil and human pride.

I wonder if you'd be able to go into more detail on how Christian scriptures 'explain human nature to a T'? There really isn't a chapter or anything that says "The Nature of Being Human" or anything like that, so I'd like more detail on what you mean by that. Perhaps some examples - I'm just unclear on how the bible clearly describes the nature of good and evil and human pride for example. Or maybe a different type of example - does the bible provide any means of dealing with, for example, clinical depression, or autism, Asperger's, dementia, Alzheimer's, or other psychological diseases? Does the bible provide any insight into the nature of confirmation bias, pattern recognition, cognitive dissonance, or the Forer effect? Any discourse on theories of human memory and recall?

I would also like to ask if other scriptural texts like the Koran, the Vedas, The Book of Mormon, Dianetics (maybe a stretch to call this 'scriptual'), or other texts also contain accurate descriptors of human behavior, and if that has any influence on your view.

I will state that I do disagree with you that the bible does a good job of describing human nature. But even beyond that...describing human nature isn't exactly something that necessarily requires divine intervention to put down on paper. There are large swaths of fiction that do an excellent job of describing different aspects of human nature.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

That sounds like a Dr. Who episode, but I don't recall which one. Every research effort will produce some fiction and some non fiction sources. I've only chosen the Christian scriptures because they explain human nature to a T. Standard Psychology theory is light years behind in explaining the nature of good and evil and human pride.

I wonder if you'd be able to go into more detail on how Christian scriptures 'explain human nature to a T'? There really isn't a chapter or anything that says "The Nature of Being Human" or anything like that, so I'd like more detail on what you mean by that. Perhaps some examples - I'm just unclear on how the bible clearly describes the nature of good and evil and human pride for example.

Nothing about the Creation account says that anything was 7 days old on the 7th day of Creation week.

Uhh, yes it does. If something starts on one day, and is finished 6 days later, then after another day to rest, it's 7 days old. That is directly what the Creation account says. As I said, I'm all for not taking it seriously. But at least admit that you're doing the same, and selectively at that.

A Catholic priest came up with that idea that the earth is young and "Creationists" bought into the idea. None of the Apostles ever mentioned it.

They didn't have to mention it. It was already written in the scripture you pretend to believe in.

I have come to the realization that the scriptures are accurate. But the descriptions of trees and fruit and such do not describe a seed 7 days old in soil.Even if it did, what is soil?

So nothing is described as being created "young". Creation seems to be "mature" from day one.That's why science does not disagree with the scriptures.It disagrees with people who think the Bible requires a "young" earth, when it doesn't.

I wonder if you'd be able to go into more detail on how Christian scriptures 'explain human nature to a T'? There really isn't a chapter or anything that says "The Nature of Being Human" or anything like that, so I'd like more detail on what you mean by that. Perhaps some examples - I'm just unclear on how the bible clearly describes the nature of good and evil and human pride for example.

a) That's a rather...non-specific response. I was hoping for more detailed analysis on your part truth be told. In a sense, I asked "Where do we find discourse on human nature in the bible?" and you answered "In the bible.". Not terribly helpful.

b) That link doesn't really say a whole lot anyway. It's a blanket search for the term "the heart" throughout the entirety of the bible, and many of the passages that come up are pretty unimpressive insofar as 'describing human nature'. Many of these are poetic passages that have similar equivalents in the poetry of a high school student, while others appear to be general observations that can be readily had by simply hanging out with another human being for 12 seconds.

c) Please don't take this as an insult or anything, but do you read much? Like, other books? Fiction, non-fiction, poetry, research, etc. It's just that...if these passages give you some great insight into human nature that you otherwise would not have gained...if these passages seem to be impressive or divinely inspired to you...well, it would just seem like you haven't read anything else. Seriously. There are other works out there that provide far, far, FAR more detailed discourse on the human nature than what can be garnered from here. Hell, I get a better sense of the nature and behavior of a child from one panel of a Calvin & Hobbes comic than I get from the entirety of the bible.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

...The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.Lets just stick to the science. Nothing lives off the earth....

I'm sorry, but I find this particularly amusing. Science is about inquiry. There is ample evidence that life is possible off the earth. Whether there is intelligent life is another matter entirely. But life? Very likely.

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

...The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.Lets just stick to the science. Nothing lives off the earth....

I'm sorry, but I find this particularly amusing. Science is about inquiry. There is ample evidence that life is possible off the earth. Whether there is intelligent life is another matter entirely. But life? Very likely.

Your being duped. There is none. People are duping you into such thinking by talking about "water" here or there. Its a scam to get more funding.

We can't even create life here. How could it happen by natural causes elsewhere?

while others appear to be general observations that can be readily had by simply hanging out with another human being for 12 seconds.

And the opposite is even more true. Understanding human nature gets better after reading scripture more.But you are correct. The Bible is not required to see the truth about God and man. The scriptures simplyagree with my observations the best.

Yes, I started by reading the entire Sci-Fiction section in my Jr. High and then H.S. as well as 2 SF classes options for english.Then being in R&D I read a lot for 20 years, mostly science journals.

So nothing is described as being created "young". Creation seems to be "mature" from day one.That's why science does not disagree with the scriptures.

Do you really not understand what is meant by "young earth"? Or are you being intentionally obtuse?

I disagree with Creationists who claim the earth should look to be only 10,000 yrs old.I'm not clear if it DID happen around then, but the description of the finished result is not one of a planet 1 week old, what ever that would look like.

So for Creationists to insist on a young earth is a waste of time. I believe what the scriptures say and the scriptures don't describe a young earth.

but the description of the finished result is not one of a planet 1 week old, what ever that would look like.

Bully for you, if you don't follow YECs. But I think their point is a deity capable of creating a universe would be capable of creating it in a way that would appear to be old. So your scientific standards of what a young planet should look like are irrelevant because they do not jibe with the bible, which is all those tards care about.

...The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.Lets just stick to the science. Nothing lives off the earth....

I'm sorry, but I find this particularly amusing. Science is about inquiry. There is ample evidence that life is possible off the earth. Whether there is intelligent life is another matter entirely. But life? Very likely.

Isn't a star a type of life? I mean they're "born", they are around a very long time then they "die". Isn't the Universe itself life? Or even Nebulas, and the like? I'm not saying they're self-aware or anything but it is life, no?[1]

Your being duped. There is none. People are duping you into such thinking by talking about "water" here or there. Its a scam to get more funding.

Welcome to the forum, SW.

I agree: we have yet to find direct evidence of extraterrestrial life. But we've barely begun to look. And it isn't being "duped" to recognize that the conditions and key elements of life as we know it aren't unique to Earth. Even in our own solar system, liquid water definitely exists on the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn, for instance.

Among the hypotheses of how and where life started on Earth (abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Deep_sea_vent_hypothesis is the "deep sea vent theory". The compositions of Europa (Jupiter) and Enceladus (Saturn) include trace metals, silicates and carbon compounds that life-as-we-know-it uses. So at least some of the conditions that may have originated all life on our own planet can be found elsewhere in our own backyard, astronomically speaking.

Quote

We can't even create life here. How could it happen by natural causes elsewhere?

Also true. We haven't created wholly artificial life. Yet. Abiogenesis is a very new field in biology / chemistry. Some important stepping-stones to actually making life from non-living elements have been accomplished, however. These include the creation of an artificial bacterium genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life). From the relevant section:

Quote

In May 2010, Craig Venter's group announced they had been able to assemble a complete genome of millions of base pairs, insert it into a cell, and cause that cell to start replicating.[26] For the creation of this "synthetic" cell, first the complete DNA sequence of the genome of a bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides was determined. A new genome was then designed based on this genome with watermarks and elements necessary for growth in yeast and genome transplantation added, as well as part of its sequence deliberately deleted. This new genome was synthesized in small fragments—over a thousand overlapping cassettes of synthetic oligonucleotides were created—which were then assembled in steps in yeast and other cells, and the complete genome finally transplanted into cell from another species Mycoplasma capricolum from which all genetic material had been removed.[27][28] The cell divided and was "entirely controlled by (the) new genome".[28] This cell has been referred to by Venter as the "first synthetic cell", and was created at a cost of over $40 million dollars.[28]

There is some debate within the scientific community over whether this cell can be considered completely synthetic on the grounds that:[28] the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and, the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium. The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA."

Life is chemistry, enormously but not insurmountably subtle. Given the immense size and age of the universe, and that the conditions that produced our life-bearing world are not unique, it's a reasonable hypothesis that life exists elsewhere.

Your being duped. There is none. People are duping you into such thinking by talking about "water" here or there. Its a scam to get more funding.

Welcome to the forum, SW.

I agree: we have yet to find direct evidence of extraterrestrial life. But we've barely begun to look. And it isn't being "duped" to recognize that the conditions and key elements of life as we know it aren't unique to Earth. Even in our own solar system, liquid water definitely exists on the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn, for instance.

No, we are just about finished. Traveling at light speed won't get us to another planet before life on earth is gone. And we don't travel at light speed well.

Quote

Among the hypotheses of how and where life started on Earth (abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Deep_sea_vent_hypothesis is the "deep sea vent theory". The compositions of Europa (Jupiter) and Enceladus (Saturn) include trace metals, silicates and carbon compounds that life-as-we-know-it uses. So at least some of the conditions that may have originated all life on our own planet can be found elsewhere in our own backyard, astronomically speaking.

Quote

We can't even create life here. How could it happen by natural causes elsewhere?

Also true. We haven't created wholly artificial life. Yet. Abiogenesis is a very new field in biology / chemistry.

You've been overexposed to a vacuum for so long that thoughts seem like they are alive. If life could develop on it's own it would be common place on earth and would have a law of nature to support it.It might read like any Frankenstein story: " Take organic material, warm it, add light, life forms".Not that advanced of course, but there would at least be ONE observation that would lead to life.And because it's so hard to really get things going....we've proven....then you should have millions of suchtheories ad experiments going at all times. But we exist in a pure vacuum of facts and just the thought of watermakes scientific grown men tinckle in their pants about the possibility of life.

Some important stepping-stones to actually making life from non-living elements have been accomplished, however. These include the creation of an artificial bacterium genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life). From the relevant section:

Quote

In May 2010, Craig Venter's group announced they had been able to assemble a complete genome of millions of base pairs, insert it into a cell, and cause that cell to start replicating.[26] For the creation of this "synthetic" cell, first the complete DNA sequence of the genome of a bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides was determined. A new genome was then designed based on this genome with watermarks and elements necessary for growth in yeast and genome transplantation added, as well as part of its sequence deliberately deleted. This new genome was synthesized in small fragments—over a thousand overlapping cassettes of synthetic oligonucleotides were created—which were then assembled in steps in yeast and other cells, and the complete genome finally transplanted into cell from another species Mycoplasma capricolum from which all genetic material had been removed.[27][28] The cell divided and was "entirely controlled by (the) new genome".[28] This cell has been referred to by Venter as the "first synthetic cell", and was created at a cost of over $40 million dollars.[28]

There is some debate within the scientific community over whether this cell can be considered completely synthetic on the grounds that:[28] the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and, the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium. The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA."

Life is chemistry, enormously but not insurmountably subtle. Given the immense size and age of the universe, and that the conditions that produced our life-bearing world are not unique, it's a reasonable hypothesis that life exists elsewhere.

But it's not reasonable that we spend time and energy we don't have on the effort. We don't have a million years just to find a worm on another planet.